Q. And do you recall about when it was that you
first realized that there was some controversy over the biology
curriculum?

A. Looking back, you know, I'm thinking it was
probably over the summer when it really first appeared on my
radar screen. But it really didn't become a reality until October
and when the policy was passed.

Q. And can you tell us what it is that you
understood was going on at these school board meetings?

MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. Just for the
record preserving my hearsay objection on any information that
she has no personal knowledge about but is relying on hearsay
statements in the newspaper.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, I'm asking her about her
state of mind and what it is that she knew or what it is that she
understood from whatever source she may have gotten it.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question to
be precise as to the source. And you may have been precise, but I
didn't hear it exactly that way. So I'll sustain the objection to
the extent that you can be more precise. But consistent with my
prior rulings, we may permit reference to the newspaper articles
to refresh recollection, et cetera. So be a little bit more
precise.

Q. Had you framed some understanding, did you have
some understanding, whether right or wrong, about what was going
on in the Dover School District prior to October?

A. Yes. I mean, you know, what I had been reading
and some of the things I've read were outlining the controversy
and basically stating that there's a science class and, you know,
talk of creationism and religious ideas.

There were science people coming forward. I know
the guy from York College had made a statement about it not being
science. There was a guy from Kansas that had made a comment
about this not being science. There was the word "creationism"
being used.

And so, you know, it just seemed to be, you know,
the science versus religious thing culminating. And that would
have been my perception.

MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I know that we've got a
standing objection, and I don't want to vex the questioner or the
witness, but, I mean, she has no personal knowledge, so what
she's basically testifying to is hearsay.

MR. GILLEN: Well, I agree that if they're not
offering it for the truth of the matter and just why she's
attending board meetings, that's fine, but to the extent that
--

THE COURT: Well, that wasn't the question. The
question wasn't why she attended board meetings, the question was
what she had heard or knew about with the understanding she
hadn't been to a board meeting. And now she's testified, as I
understand it, sort of broadly about what she read in the
newspaper, although I'm not sure of all the sources. The answer
was perhaps a little bit broader than that. That doesn't go to
the truth. It does go to the effect prong regardless of truth,
doesn't it?

MR. GILLEN: Well, I would say no. As you know,
that's an issue that we're going to revisit in connection with
the reporters, but, I mean, to say that she's acting based on
information she received in the newspapers saying, in effect,
that information was true.

MR. GILLEN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. With that
understanding that it's not evidence admissible for the purpose
of the truth of the matter she's testifying to, that, you know,
if it's what she thought, I can't object to that. I agree. But if
it's offered for the truth, then I object based on hearsay.

MR. WALCZAK: It is offered purely to establish her
state of mind and what her understanding was based on the sources
that were available to her at the time. So this is not offered
for the truth of what's in those articles.

THE COURT: And we may have a disagreement that
we'll endure as to the effect prong under Lemon because I don't
think it requires, in every case, that the recipients -- that the
information received by the recipient, in this case her, that it
be true, does it?

MR. GILLEN: I would think that the effects can
only be established by admissible evidence, and that is evidence
that is admissible for substantive purposes.

Judge, I mean, I don't want to put too fine a
point on it, but, you know, Chicken Little could have said the
sky was falling, you know, Foxy-Woxy could have reported it, and
Henny-Penny could have read it, thought it was true, but as the
story goes, the King knew better.

And you can't convict someone based on hearsay.
You can't demonstrate effects except through admissible evidence,
and that admissible evidence is non-hearsay. And by any other
measure, effects have to be proven by admissible evidence.

MR. GILLEN: No, it's objective, and it's based on
admissible evidence. It has to be in a court proceeding, Your
Honor. You can't use the effects prong to let in a ton of
hearsay. If that was the case, you could prove the whole case
through newspaper clippings.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, first of all, you know, I
think if you look at Doe versus Santa Fe, certainly if you look
at McCreary, I'm pretty sure in Selman -- and Mr. Katskee
unfortunately left for the holidays, and he's our real expert on
this, but I think in all of those cases, and in Wallace versus
Jaffrey, the Court looked at newspaper articles to help gauge the
effect on the community.

And this is not offered -- you know, this is not
there for hearsay purposes. This is not for the truth of the
matter asserted. It is for what the reasonable, average person in
the community is seeing or believing. And, you know, as long as I
don't have to answer with a countering rhyme, let me just --
which I was duly impressed by that, but this is --

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, it is the fact that this
is out there, right or wrong. And some people are forming an
impression about that, again, right or wrong. But the impression
here in the community is, based on reading everything that's
being published, that this is a religious dispute.

MR. GILLEN: By bringing in evidence of what
actually happened and measuring it on the part of witnesses who
were actually there.

THE COURT: But the witness who was there, once it
hits that witness, it becomes a subjective exercise, whether
they're there or whether they read it in the paper.

In other words, you have a dispute about what was
said at these school board meetings. You have school board
members who deny, as I understand it, that they said certain
things that have been attributed to them. So if a witness says
that he or she heard something and that's already in dispute,
what am I to do with that?

MR. GILLEN: But, Your Honor, from my perspective,
that's the point. I mean, the effect of a newspaper article is
the effect of a newspaper article. And that newspaper article, if
it could be established without speculation, for one thing -- I
mean, just look at what you're being asked to do here. Ten
thousand people could have read the paper. One could have said,
oh, my heavens, this is nonsense. Another could have said, you
know, they're at it again. Who knows. Number one, it's pure
speculation.

Number two, the effect is the effect of what the
reporter said. Look at these things. They look at what one person
has said, arguably, in a board meeting and leave out what ten
have said. How could the board be responsible for that? It's
hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, I think you make it too fine a
point. In the milieu and in the array of information available to
this average person, and I think the cases are somewhat in --
they're not in conflict, but are we -- who is the recipient?

I think some of them set up a sort of reasonably
intelligent person, but I think you're placing too fine a point
on it. I think within the broad array of informational sources
for measuring the effect prong, in some cases, not all of them,
would be a newspaper.

THE COURT: What you're saying is for a newspaper
to be that, the veracity of the newspaper article has to be
tested. And once it goes through that gate and it passes, then
it's all right for the effect prong, if I hear you correctly.

MR. GILLEN: What I'm saying is, if it's not
hearsay, then it is evidence and then it's admissible for the
purpose of proving liability, but if it's hearsay, it is not. And
by any other measure to say that paper clippings are the proof of
effect is to say that they're proof of true effect.

THE COURT: So you're saying that if the reporters
testify and if I establish that the articles are -- I know you
don't want this, but if we get to that point and I say that
having tested the veracity of the articles based on the
reporters' testimony that the articles are accurate and represent
a true account of what they saw and heard at the school board
meetings and if I admit that over your objection, understandably,
that that -- we're over that hurdle.

MR. GILLEN: I'm saying that you can admit them if
you find they are an exception to the hearsay rule. Our position
is still that it's not proof of effects because the newspaper
article itself is the act of a newspaper reporter and not the
board.

And if my clients are believed, what the newspaper
reporter chose to do is to create a totally false and misleading
impression about the actual board deliberations, and therefore,
no, they would not be -- I acknowledge, you are the gatekeeper on
evidence, but it wouldn't be proof of the effects because it's
the proof of what a newspaper reporter wrote.

THE COURT: Well, I'll close the loop by saying
this. I'm going to overrule the objection on that basis. I think
what you're left with is not necessarily a technical argument on
what is hearsay and what's not. I don't see that. I don't think
that the hearsay objection can operate to prevent this type of
effect testimony.

However, I don't think that you're then estopped
from arguing that the information was so unreliable that it ought
not be considered for the effect prong. I would rather err on the
side of letting it in at this point. You can argue from a
qualitative standpoint that it's just so unreliable that a
reasonable person should not have received that for the effect
that it's -- as it's being attributed.

MR. GILLEN: As you know, Your Honor, I'll make the
arguments you let me make, and I'll deal with the rulings that
you make.

MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, let me just make one last
point. In McCreary, which is the Supreme Court's most recent
pronouncement on the Lemon test, the Court there -- there was a
long discussion, and they set up the reasonably informed
observer. It's not the reasonably informed observer who attended
those McCreary County board meetings.

MR. WALCZAK: It's the reasonably informed
observer, period. And they don't specify whether, you know, it
has to be established as accurate or inaccurate information. And,
you know, I mean, Ms. Sneath, to some extent, is a person -- or
to every extent is a person who lives in this district, whose
information she got, like other people got, through the
newspaper, and what she knew as of October 18th came from the
newspaper, and she formed an understanding.

THE COURT: Well, I will grant that all of us
should go back and look at the cases again, as if we haven't
already. We certainly have. But I think you'll agree -- I think
you'll agree that the cases are not consistent in terms of
McCreary does say -- and that's where the word "reasonable"
popped into my head -- sets up a particular test. But the cases
are somewhat inconsistent, and I think there's been some
confusion judicially with respect to who the recipient is for the
effect prong. And I've got to negotiate that at some point.

But for the purpose of this witness, I'm going to
err on the side of caution and let it in subject to, as I said,
an argument by the defense that, for example, consistent with
McCreary, that that reasonable observer should not have accepted
that on the effect prong.

I frankly think that's your better argument to
make than to stand so clinically on hearsay, because I don't read
the cases as saying that you had to make a threshold hearsay
determination on the effect prong. So with that --

A. Just type in intelligent design, and you get a
lot of hits. There's a lot of information to weed through.
There's a lot of just news lists, people discussing it, but then
there were more specific places that, you know, gave you more
specific information.

A. I researched it quite a bit. You know, there
was a lot of material to read. A lot of times -- you know, you
have small kids, you get interrupted, you have to make dinner,
whatever. You know what I mean? But I'd go back in spare time
that I had to kind of look into it, because the further you
looked into it, the more I realized that this was not just a
local Dover issue. I became very aware that this is an issue that
is, you know, widespread.

Q. Do you remember some of the Web sites that
popped up when you did a search for intelligent design?

A. Panda's Thumb, which led me to the NCSE Web
site, which was like a wealth of information. That was really the
big one that told me that, you know, this was not just a small
little issue here. I mean, there were Web sites that people had
done that had been active in what was going on, and they kind of
did their own little pages with information that they knew,
specifically addressing how -- the method of getting this done by
going and appealing to a school board and getting a few
sympathetic members, just outlining different things like that.
So it was, you know, just a wide variety.

A. Yeah. I mean, it's a small room. And when the
meeting is done, everybody is kind of milling around. You know
what I mean? You're all kind of right there. And we happened to
be standing there, and she was making the comment that she had
regretted her decision and that she had been called an atheist,
she had been called un-Christian.

And I felt bad because she had also talked about,
at that board meeting, about giving her resignation. Now, she
didn't do it at that meeting. It was a long time until she ended
up actually -- I think officially stepping down. But that was
like the first time she talked about it. And so with her saying
that and then making these comments, it kind of like made me feel
bad.

And I interjected and I said to her, don't quit.
Why should you quit? You know, if you feel strongly about the
issue, you've changed your mind, just keep revisiting the issue.
And that was really the extent of the conversation.

Q. But you overheard her make comments that other
board members had called her an atheist?

A. That's what she was saying as I was standing
there. And then, you know, as soon as she was done saying that,
I, like, intervened and encouraged her not to quit.

Q. And do you remember the words that she used?
Did she use the word "atheist"?

A. Yes. She used the word "atheist," and she used
the word "un-Christian."

Q. Now, did you have an opportunity to speak to
Ms. Yingling again after that meeting?

A. She -- I can't remember exactly which board
meeting, but there was a particular board meeting she had handed
me her business card, and she was like, call me, you know, and so
I did. And I think I called her -- it had to have been sometime
in January. I don't know, you know, exactly when.

A. Correct. To see what she wanted. And she
actually wanted to know if I wanted to run for school board with
her, because at that time I think, you know, that she was trying
to make future plans. And, you know, I really wasn't interested
in doing that. But, you know, the conversation kind of went from
there.

And I think it was an emotional time for her. She
was very emotional. She was very upset. She felt she had been
treated very badly. And I remember her stating that she was
working on her resignation speech. So I know it was before she
actually, you know, resigned.

And, again, she kind of reiterated that same thing
to me, that, you know, if you're not their kind of Christian or
something to that effect and -- you know, she was emotional.

Q. But do you remember those words, "their kind of
Christian," being said by her?

A. Yeah. And I know other people that had gotten
it, as well. I, you know, had talked to different people, and it
was kind of the buzz of the news going around that everybody had
gotten this.

Q. Now, you just characterized this as advocating
intelligent design. I mean, why do you say that?

A. Well, that was my perception. Two days after I
received this, I got a regular newsletter in the mail. And, you
know, this wasn't just telling people this is what we've done,
this is, look what we've done, and Senator Rick Santorum agrees
in the No Child Left Behind, and, you know, all the -- what I
consider propaganda to go behind it.

Q. So you felt like they were trying to convince
you that intelligent design is a scientific alternative to
evolution?

Q. So is it clear to you that this biology
curriculum update was not a regular newsletter?

A. Well, I -- you know, in my mind, again, if you
just want to notify people about what you've done or what a
school board has done, I think it would have just been reasonable
to put it in a regular newsletter. I mean, obviously this was an
extra expense to taxpayers. And as a taxpayer, you're concerned
about that.

A. Well, you know, as a parent, you want to be
proactive in your child's education. I mean, obviously I'm not an
educator. I have no big degrees. I want to be proactive, but I
depend on the school district to provide the fundamentals. And I
consider evolution to be a fundamental of science.

And I'm quite concerned about a cautionary
statement. I am quite concerned about this intelligent design
idea. I do think it's confusing. I don't think it adds to his
education.

And at the end of the day, I mean, in my mind,
intelligent designer, I mean, the word "designer" is a synonym
for Creator, and, you know, that takes a leap of faith for me,
you know. And I think it's my privilege to guide them in matters
of faith, not a science teacher, not an administrator, and not
the Dover Area School Board.

Q. Good afternoon. I met you at your deposition
and will ask you a few questions today about your trial
testimony. I just want to again make clear now, you didn't attend
board meetings until November, 2004. Correct?

A. I did go to the Discovery Institute Web site,
but I can't say that there was a whole lot of information there.
It's not like they critique their own, you know, ideas, and so,
you know, it wasn't that great of a Web site, actually.

Q. Sure. But you did learn that approximately 300
scientists agree with the idea that they were promoting? Well,
let me ask you this.

A. I have heard that somewhere, but I don't know
if I actually obtained that through their Web site.

Q. Looking at that, it references that you've
heard that 300 scientists agree with this idea?

A. Yeah, I heard it somewhere. I just wasn't -- I
thought you might have been asking did I read that from their Web
site, and that I did not remember doing. But I have heard that
comment that 300 scientists have supported it.

Q. And you've read, you said, somewhere on the
Internet about the Wedge strategy?

A. I don't have an objection to them being in the
library. I probably have an objection to, you know, 20 copies
being in the library just for the fact that, I mean, libraries
don't have much space, and, I mean, 20 books of any one book is
kind of a waste of space.

Q. I want to ask you about the newsletter. Is it
your position that the district shouldn't have put out a
newsletter addressing this controversy?

A. No, that's not my position. I think the
district could have easily advised its constituents in the
regular newsletter instead of paying extra money for this
newsletter. And to me this was not simply a newsletter, this is
what we've done. I mean, this was more than that. This was what
we've done, and this is who stands behind it, and this is, you
know, what makes it a great thing.

A. It's a seventh-grade life science curriculum.
About a third of the year includes work with inquiries,
scientific method. Then two-thirds of the year would be a very
basic life science class, characteristics of living things,
chemistry of living things, cell theory, germ theory, at a very
basic level.

A. Okay. I graduated from West York in 1973. In
1977, I graduated from Penn State with a degree in bachelor's of
elementary education. I continued my education at Millersville
and Wilkes and received my master's equivalency from the
Department of Education. And as a result of the No Child Left
Behind, I had to take a practice test to get additional
certification so that I could teach science in the middle
school.

Q. Now, tell us, if you can, what you can remember
learning from what you read in the newspaper about the June 7th
school board meeting.

A. The June 7th school board meeting, what I can
remember reading is that a former school board member, Barrie
Callahan, had approached the board questioning why the students
still did not have an adopted biology text for the ninth-grade
biology course. Apparently there had been money allocated for
that in a previous budget, and at this point there still had been
no textbook approved. It seemed as if there was a textbook that
was -- the teachers wanted approved, the dragonfly book. She was
questioning why they didn't have a textbook at that point.

Also, from that then my understanding is that
Board Member Buckingham said that he was seeking -- well, that
the book was laced with Darwinism, that he wanted to see some
equal treatment of creationism along with evolution. Board Member
Bonsell said that there were only two theories, and one was
evolution, one was creationism.

Board Member Buckingham said that the separation
of church and state was a myth. And I also believe that that was
the meeting that Max Pell spoke, a student, and he addressed the
board just saying that, you know, evolution is the only thing
that they should be teaching, that teaching creationism could
cause them problems.

Q. I've handed you a notebook of materials. Please
open it to what's been marked as P44 and tell us if you've ever
seen it before.

Q. Tell us what you can remember learning from
what you read in the newspaper about the meeting of the school
board held on June the 14th, 2004.

A. What I remember reading is that Board Member
Buckingham began -- or at the beginning of the meeting apologized
to the community, to the people at the board meeting for his
actions prior to that.

But then, again, I think the issues became the
textbook adoption laced with Darwinism. Again I think he repeated
the claim that separation was a myth. And I think that was the
meeting where he said that someone died on a Cross for us 2000
years ago, can't we do something for Him.

Q. Now, I'd like you to take a look at what's been
marked as Exhibit 53 in your notebook. Have you had a chance to
look at that?

A. The only thing I remember about that meeting --
this gave me the impression that things were going well with the
textbook adoption -- was that they had found a new edition of the
dragonfly book, that they were looking at a 2002 edition, they
had found a 2004 edition, and they were going to review that
further.

A. I believe that that meeting occurred early in
August, around August 4th, and at that time the textbook was
eventually approved. At first it was a four-four vote. As I
understand it, that's not enough to have the book adopted. Board
Member Angie Yingling asked for a reconsideration vote and the
re-vote was five to three.

There was also some information there regarding
Board Member Buckingham saying that he wouldn't allow -- or he
didn't -- if he didn't get what he wanted as far as the
curriculum or a book was concerned, that he didn't want to see
this textbook being adopted. I think they even used the word
"blackmail."

Q. And please take a moment to look at what's been
marked as P682. Have you had a chance to look at that?

A. This would have been the first time that it
came to my attention that they were considering bringing in a
supplemental textbook, the Pandas textbook. And it seemed to me
that that was their answer to the dragonfly book, getting their
equal balance.

I think the problem was, number one, using
taxpayer money, they would have to go through the adoption
process. They were trying to figure a way of getting the book in
and also a way of getting it into the curriculum.

Q. Please take a moment to look at what's been
marked as P679. Have you had a chance to look at that?

Q. Now, do you remember learning about a second
meeting in September of 2004?

A. There was a second meeting in September. There
wasn't a whole heck of a lot reported on that. Now, I did go on
the board's site, and it looks like it was just a meeting,
probably a business meeting that lasted 45 minutes. And I really
didn't learn anything regarding this controversy.

A. There were two board meetings in October. I
think October 4th might have been the first one.

Q. What do you recall learning from reading the
newspaper about the October 4th, 2004 board meeting?

A. That was when it was announced that there had
been an anonymous donation of 60 copies of Pandas and People and
that that book would be used as a supplemental text within the
classroom. Because it was not -- didn't go through the formal
adoption process, it did not require board approval. They just
were basically going to put it in the classroom.

The other thing that I remember there is I think
that at that point Dr. Nilsen was questioned as to whether or not
the teachers would be teaching intelligent design or instructed
to teach intelligent design, and I think his answer was that they
weren't going to be instructed to teach intelligent design, but
that if they did, that would be okay. I'm not sure exactly how
the phrase went.

THE COURT: While he's doing that, Mr. Harvey, by
no means do I want to hurry you through this. If you think that
you can finish your direct by going a little past 4:30, we can do
that. Otherwise, wherever you want to -- if you've got measurably
more, I would say anytime you want to find an appropriate break
point, we can do that and pick up with this witness on Friday.
Your call.

My co-counsel reminds me that we're going to have
an expert testifying on Friday morning and that we want to make
sure that we have plenty of time for his cross-examination so
that he can leave that day, so we'd like to press on as long as
the Court would permit us to press. If we could go to quarter of
5:00 --

THE COURT: I don't have a problem with that.
Defense counsel have any problem?

MR. GILLEN: We'll hang in there, Your Honor. The
cross, I imagine, would be very short anyway.

THE COURT: Well, let's do the best we can. We'll
go until 4:45, in any event. We'll see how far we get.

Q. Now, do you remember -- I don't want you to
look at the article. You can close your book for a second. Do you
remember reading about or learning about comments that Board
Member Heather Geesey made at that meeting on October the
18th?

A. I'm not sure if it was the October the 18th
meeting, but I know that there was a question regarding whether
or not -- I actually thought it was the next meeting, but
whether, if the teachers sought to have legal counsel, Stock and
Leader, the school board's lawyers, would they, in case the
teachers got sued for teaching this, would they defend them. And
Heather Geesey at that point said if they would ask for that, if
they'd ask for help from Stock and Leader, they should be
fired.

A. Well, what I remember there is that Noel
Weinrich, who was -- I believe at that point in time he had
resigned from the board and his resignation was effective. He was
upset. He was concerned about who was going to -- if the school
district got sued, who is going to cover his bills, you know,
legal bills if he had any. And also he was, I think, upset
because I think he had been -- he felt he had been assured by Dr.
Nilsen that we were not going to be teaching -- that the district
was not going to be teaching intelligent design.

Q. And do you remember learning anything about
tapes that had been made of the board meeting?

A. Okay, the tapes. Apparently the board tapes
their meetings for use when they go back and try to put their
minutes together. And there were people requesting the minutes
from the October 18th meeting. Those tapes were denied to
them.

There was some question about what the whole
policy was regarding these tapes. I believe that Board Member
Bonsell said that once the minutes had been typed and approved at
the next board meeting, that these tapes were destroyed.

And I believe that they also said under the advice
of their solicitor that -- because they were -- there was the
chance that they would be sued in the future because of what had
happened at the October 18th meeting, that they were told that
they should be destroyed, or at least not turn them over to the
public.

Q. Please take a moment to look at what's been
marked as P104. What is P104?

A. P104 was the -- they call it the board press
release. My question all along had been, now we have this
curriculum, how are they going to implement it. And I believe
this is their policy that they're telling the public how they're
going to implement this. They're going to read a statement. This
appeared on the Web site on Friday, November 19th.

A. All along I thought this would just go away. I
don't know how -- that's the only thing I can say. And, you know,
as a teacher, there are things in the curriculum, you try to
cover them. The question is how they're going to be implemented.
This showed me how this curriculum was going to -- that it was
going to be implemented, how it was going to be implemented. And
this, I would have to say, was the thing that put me over the
edge.

A. Well, what I did is, I really -- you know, I
had heard the ACLU being bantered around in the newspapers at
that point in time. I called -- I believe they have a hotline in
Philadelphia. And I called that, and I just basically said I'm a
parent who has a student in Dover School District, and I feel
right now that possibly some of my rights and my daughter's
rights might be being violated. I was looking for somewhere to
turn. And that was basically -- you know, with contact
information, that was what I did that day.

Q. Now, after reading these articles and reading
this -- what was posted on the Web site, did you begin to attend
school board meetings?

A. I did not -- well, yes, because the next school
board meeting would have been December 1st. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, I'd like you to take a look at what's been
marked as P127. We've looked at this in court several times. Do
you recognize it as the newsletter that was published in February
of 2005 by the school board?

A. Much to my wife's chagrin, I went to the school
board meeting on February 14th, Valentine's Day. And it was not
on the agenda. You're able to pull up the agenda to the school
board meetings on their Web site, and it was not on that agenda.
Additionally, they also publish agendas and have those there for
you to pick up at the meeting. There was nothing on there
regarding the approval of this newsletter.

There's a section in -- when they work through
their agenda, and I'm not sure exactly what it's called, but it's
president's message or president's communications. And at that
time Board Member Eric Riedel made a motion to send out a
district newsletter in addition to the one they were already
sending out regarding the biology curriculum update. It was
seconded by Board Member Buckingham, and it passed seven-zero.
There are nine members on the school board. Two were absent.

Q. Now, I'd like you to tell us, what was your
reaction as a schoolteacher -- and I'm going to take you through
parts of it. There are some frequently asked questions, and I'd
like you to look at the first frequently asked question and tell
us what was your reaction as a schoolteacher to that
statement.

A. A small minority of parents. I don't care if
it's one parent objecting to this, but the group of folks that
I'm involved with are plaintiffs. We were being put into this
small group that was making problems and trouble for the school
district.

Q. And take a look at the second frequently asked
question. Did you have a reaction to that statement there?

A. I would completely disagree with this. In my
opinion, intelligent design is religion in disguise. I use the
word "camouflage."

A. (Reading:) The word "evolution" has several
meanings, and those supporting Darwin's theory of evolution use
that confusion in definition to their advantage. So we're going
to put evolution over on people, we're going to employ
double-talk. We say one thing, we say another thing. That's not
what scientists do.

Q. So you understood the school board to say that
science teachers engage in double-talk when they talk about
evolution?

Q. And please take a look at the next frequently
asked question. Well, actually, within that, what we were just
looking at, it says, In simple terms, on a molecular level,
scientists have discovered a purposeful arrangement of parts
which cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Did you have a
reaction to that statement at the time?

A. Well, the word "purposeful." Again, I think
we're going back to the whole concept of design and then someone
had a purpose and that would be God.

Q. The next frequently asked question says, Are
Dover students taught the theory of intelligent design? And
there's a response there. Do you see that?

A. This is the great one-minute statement. We're
making a one-minute statement, but we're not teaching. I've been
teaching for 29 years. Everything that I say in that classroom is
teaching. I carry a fair amount of authority and credibility
within that.

If I say that one NFL football -- and I'm trying
to avoid sports analogies here. But if I say one NFL football
team is better than another, I'm going to tell you that 80
percent of my kids are going to go back to their parents and say,
this is what Mr. Stough said, and this is how it is. I don't care
if it's a minute, I don't care if it's ten seconds, it's
teaching.

Q. And then there's another frequently asked
question that said, Are there religious implications to the
theory of ID? And there's a response. Can you tell us if you had
a reaction to that question and response at the time?

A. No more so than religious implications of
Darwin's theory. There are no religious implications of the
theory of evolution. They like to characterize evolution as being
dogmatic, as being a religion. It's not. And so, again, they're
just saying this is -- you know, evolution is a religion, too.
It's not.

Q. And then, finally, under the right-hand corner
there's something that says, quotables, and then there's a
quotation from somebody named Anthony Flew, and it refers to him
as a world-famous atheist. Do you recall having a reaction to
that quotation from Mr. Flew at the time?

A. Well, what they're doing -- from what I
understand the story with Anthony Flew is, he was an atheist, and
they equate that point in time of his life with his, you know,
adhering to or accepting the theory of evolution.

Then he moved towards the intelligent design
concept and at the same time was finding religion, was no longer
an atheist. There are a lot of messages there. Atheism is bad.
Religion is good. And, you know, I had to laugh at how many
people want to be world-famous atheists.

MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, that's all the questions I
have on that exhibit, but I do have a few other exhibits, and
we're surely not going to get it done in the next few
minutes.

THE COURT: All right. And certainly we're not
going to get cross in today, so we'll adjourn for the day. We'll
be in recess until Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. Now, you have an
expert who is going to follow this witness. Is that correct?

THE COURT: Why don't we start at 8:45 just to be
safe and give you a little extra time. And certainly I'd give the
defendants the same courtesy during your case-in-chief. I just
want to keep this moving. That will give us a little bit of a
cushion at the outset so we don't get lost on this witness on
Friday morning.

So we will reconvene at 8:45. That will be our
starting time on Friday morning, and we'll go as long as we have
to. I would rather not go beyond 4:30, actually, on Friday. We
have a full week. I think we're in session every day or parts of
every day next week, so we'll try to wrap it up at least by 4:30.
But that will give us a cushion if we start at 8:45. So we'll
recess until 8:45 on Friday. Wish you all a pleasant good
evening. We'll see you then.